Complaint by BTF

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 26
Babak Pourtavoosi, Esq

Pannun The Firm, P.C.
75-20 Astoria Boulevard, Suite 170
Jackson Heights, NY 11370
T: (718) 672-8000 F:(718) 672-4729
babakpacer@gmail.com
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________
"Burma Task Force" (BTF);
)
)
Hitay Lwin Oo;
)
Civil Action. No. 15-7772
an individual belonging to Rohingya community )
)
and
)
COMPLAINT FOR GENOCIDE;
)
TORTURE; CRUEL INHUMAN
"JOHN DOEs" for themselves and
)
OR OTHER DEGRADING
their injured and deceased relatives,
)
TREATMENT;
left presently unnamed,
)
ARBITRARY DETENTION;
)
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Plaintiffs,
)
VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF
v.
)
RELIGION AND BELIEF
)
Thein Sein
)
President of Myanmar ; former Prime
)
CLASS ACTION
Minister and General of Myanmar Army
)
)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Wunna Maung Lwin
)
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Myanmar
)
)
Thein Htay
)
Ex Minister of Border Affairs, Myanmar
)
)
Khin Yi
)
Ex Minister for Immigration and Population
)
)
Maung Ohn
)
Chief Minister of Rakhine State, Myanmar
)
)
Ko Ko
)
Minister of Home Affairs, Myanmar
)
)
Defendants
)
_________________________________________ )
Complaint
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, allege the following:
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a civil action for compensatory and punitive damages for torts committed in
violation of international laws and domestic laws of the United States. Plaintiffs in this
action -- are individuals and members of the Rohingya community, a minority Muslim
community mostly inhibiting in western Myanmar (Burma).
2. The Rohingya people numbering over 1.3 million is a Muslim minority living in western
Myanmar. Although they are living in the country for generations they are denied
citizenship and basic necessities including basic healthcare, work and schooling. They are
primary targets of hate crimes and discrimination amounting to genocide fueled by
extremist nationalist Buddhist monks and Thein Sein government.
3. Since 1962, the Burman Buddhist supremacist government of Myanmar has ruled with an
exclusionary, authoritarian ideology. Rohingyas are excluded from citizenship and
brutally persecuted because of their faith and ethnicity. The governments policies were
described in 2000 as Ethnic Cleansing by the International Federation of Human Rights
Leagues and in 2010, as Crimes Against Humanity by the Irish Center for Human Rights.
4. In 1982, the Burman supremacist government stripped most Rohingya of their
citizenship. They were re-named Bengalis, and reclassified as foreign to Myanmar.
Rohingya speak a different language and are not Bengalis, a different ethnic group that
lives mostly in Bangladesh. Their only common identity is that both groups are Muslim.
The government claimed that the Rohingya were colonial era settlers from Bengal,
Complaint
British India, denying the fact that Rohingya have lived in Rakhine State for hundreds of
years.
5. Plaintiffs and/or their next of kin were subjected to genocide1, torture, arbitrary detention,
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the officials acting under the command and
control of or on behest of the defendants and other anti Muslim groups particularly 969
Movement with the acquiescence and approval of the defendant(s).
6. The defendants planned, instigated, ordered, authorized or incited the official forces and
unofficial groups to commit the abuses suffered the plaintiffs in particular and the
members of the Rohingya community of Myanmar in general, and had command or
superior responsibility over, controlled or aided and abetted such forces in their
commission of such abuses. The acts committed against Plaintiffs and the members of
Rohingya community were carried out in the context of an ongoing policy of persecution
and genocide against the Rohingya people of Myanmar.
7. Genocide, ethnic cleansing and persecution of Rohingya people in Myanmar is well
documented and is acknowledged by the international community. United Nations
officials and independent human rights groups have reported evidence of direct state
complicity in ethnic cleansing and severe human rights abuses, blocking of humanitarian
aid and incitement of anti-Muslim violence, constituting ominous warning signs of
genocide.
"[G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental
harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e)
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[See (Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of Genocide; 18 U.S.C. 1091(a)(c)(d)]
Complaint
8. The Plaintiff class leaders will testify and produce sworn statements to be filed under seal
for the security and safety of both themselves and their other family members still
residing in Myanmar and subject to the pressures of the local law enforcement controlled
and commanded by the Defendants. These sworn statements would be made available for
"in-camera" inspection by this honorable Court. These sworn statements would show the
horrors that these Plaintiffs have suffered and that their deceased loved ones have
suffered at the hands of the state government run and controlled by the Defendant. They
will show how the Plaintiffs and their families directly and substantially suffered bodily,
property, psychological, emotional and mental injuries in Myanmar, as a result of the
violence that was ordered, aided, abetted, directed, facilitated and connived by the
Defendants.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. Plaintiffs assert violations of customary international law, including the prohibition
genocide; torture (mental and physical) other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,
arbitrary detention, crimes against humanity and interference with freedom of religion
and belief and prohibition of torture under Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA),
Pub. L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992) codified at 28 U.S.C. 1350 note (2006)); UN
Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (CPPCG) and customary international law. The Court has jurisdiction over the
state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.
10. Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1391(b) (3).
Complaint
III. PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
11. The Plaintiff "Burma Task Force" (BTF) is a coalition of nineteen (19) Muslim American
organizations that is managed by Justice for All (JFA), a non-profit human rights NGO
affiliated with the United Nations and working to bring to justice perpetrators of mass
violence and genocide.
12. Individual plaintiff Hitay Lwin Oo is a Rohingya Muslim hailing from the State of
Rakhine, Myanmar. Oo left Myanmar and came to the United States because of the
torture, mistreatment and persecution that he suffered in Myanmar at the hands of the
Government of Myanmar. The plaintiff was illegally detained by the authorities for 27
days and during detention he was beaten and tortured. During the detention the officers
ask him to sign the blank papers and when he refused, the officers starting beating him.
He was punched on the face several times, leaving his nose and face swollen and
bleeding, leaving him unable to eat and chew for several days. On other occasion, he was
beaten all over body with the leather belts and at one point he was hit on the head causing
heavy started. The plaintiff was often beaten tell he fell unconscious. The torture
continued almost on daily basis while he was in illegal detention. The plaintiff was told
by the officers that they had arrested him because he is a Rohingya and that Rohingyas do
not belong to Burma and that he would be either killed or thrown out of the country.
13. In September 2013, plaintiff's family home located in Block Thantwe Township, Rakhine
State was surrounded by police and people 969 Movement. At that time, plaintiff's
brother Than Lwin, mother Malay 80 years old, cousin Ma Khim Wai, aunt Daw Ma Zae
were living there. The attackers lead by the police physically abused and beat plaintiffs
Complaint
family members and burnt down the house. Six other houses belonging to Rohingyas
were also burnt. After few weeks of September 2013 attacks defendant Thein Sein visited
the locality to celebrate the victory and on that day another 120 house were burnt. Thein
Sein delivered a speech and praised that area was cleansed of the Rohingyas
14. The attack on the plaintiffs family and burning of his family home was carried out by
workers and activists of 969 Movement and members of Burmese police and military on
the orders and instigation of Thein Sein the President of Burma and other high ranking
members of the Burmese Government.
15. The September 2013 violent attack on the plaintiff's family resulted in the bodily injuries
to his old and ailing mother and injuries to his brother and severe mental trauma and
emotional distress to the plaintiff and his family. The individual Plaintiffs "John Does"
are members of Rohingya community of Myanmar directly affected by the policies and
acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and persecution. Their families were attacked, tortured,
killed, maimed, or brutally injured. They file this action against the perpetrator of these
wrongs under anonymity for the time being. They bring this action on their own behalf
and that of their families who were killed or injured in Myanmar.
16. The class consists of the members of Rohingya community of Myanmar who are
survivors of or next to kin of those who were killed as result of the policies and acts of
genocide, ethnic cleansing and persecution. Their families were attacked, tortured, killed,
maimed, or brutally injured.
B. Defendants:
17. Defendant Thein Sein is a Burmese politician and former military commander who has
been President of Burma (Myanmar) since March 2011. He was the Prime Minister of
Complaint
Myanmar from 2007 until 2011. During his military career, Thein Sein commanded
soldiers who committed war crimes and what would now be classed as crimes against
humanity, while regional commander in Eastern Shan State. Crimes committed by his
soldiers include widespread and systematic rape, mass forced relocation, land
confiscation and forced labor. In 1998 Thein Sein was personally named by the United
Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in Burma for directly ordering his soldiers to
commit human rights abuses. In 1988, as major of Light Infantry Division 55, the
defendant Sein he played a role in the crushing of the democracy uprising. Thousands of
students were massacred. Thein Sein later said that the Burmese Army saved the nation
by crushing the uprising. In 1996 Thein Sein became Commander of the Triangle Region
Military Command, based in Kentung, eastern Shan State. He held this position until
November 2001. During this period horrific human rights abuses were committed by
soldiers under his command. These abuses were so serious that they could be classed as
war crimes and as crimes against humanity. As commander of these soldiers he is directly
responsible for the abuses which took place. Under Thein Sein's rule, the government of
Myanmar has intensified the policies of persecution and ethnic cleansing of Rohingya
people. The defendant's regime has been denying the right to citizenship to Rohingya
people, limiting their rights to marry, have children, work, obtain healthcare and go to
school. The defendant Thein Sein has declared that There are no Rohingya in Myanmar
and under his rule Rohingyas were denied recognition in the 2014 census.
18. Defendant Wunna Maung Lwin is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Myanmar, in
office since 2011. He joined the diplomatic service in 1999, after a long career in
the Myanmar Armed Forces. As foreign minister of Myanmar, defendant Lwin has been
Complaint
playing a key role in denying the Genocide of Rohingya before the international
community and has thus been instrumental in prolonging the persecution of Rohingya
Muslims of Myanmar.
19. Defendant Thein Htay is currently serving as Lieutenant General of the Myanmar
Army. During the period beginning March 2011 till February 2013, defendant Htay was
Minister of Border Affairs in Myanmar government and during that time, mass violence
against Rohingya Muslims was carried out by the forces he controlled and commanded.
20. Defendant Khin Yi, was the Minister for Immigration and Population from 2011 till
August 2015. He previously served as the Chief of the Myanmar Police Force and is a
retired Brigadier General of the Myanmar Army. As Minister for Immigration and
Population, Defendant Yi directly ordered, participated in and oversaw the policies and
actions of the government aimed at stripping citizenship and restricting population and
birth rights of Rohingya Muslims. In 2013, Khin Yi, while he was Minister of
Immigration and Population, publicly supported the government's announcement of
enforcement by local authorities of a two-child policy in northwestern Rakhine State for
Rohingya Muslims, establishing his complicity and participation in acts of genocide.
21. Defendant Maung Ohn is the incumbent Chief Minister of Rakhine State, Myanmar. He
is a General in Myanmar Army and has previously served as Deputy Minister of Home
Affairs. Defendant Ohn, a Burmese by ethnicity, throughout his career has supported,
promoted and facilitated the persecution of Rohingya people and especially ever since he
has assumed the office of Chief Minister, Ohn has intensified the policies and practices
targeting Rohingya Muslims living under his control.
Complaint
22. Defendant Ko Ko is the incumbent Minister of Home Affairs, a department responsible

for internal security and policing in Myanmar. Ko Ko also serves as Lieutenant General
in Myanmar Army. Defendant Ko Ko is part of those innner circles of Myanmar
government and authorities where decisions of taking violent actions against Rohingya
Muslims are made.
23. Under the defendants' rule and control, the criminal acts committed against the Rohingya
Muslim community beginning in June 2012 amount to crimes against humanity carried
out as part of ongoing genocide. Under international law, crimes against humanity are
crimes committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population.
The attack must be against a specific population and part of a state or organizational
policy. Non-state organizations including political parties and religious bodies can be
responsible for crimes against humanity if they have a sufficient degree of organization.
24. The evidence indicates that at behest of and with the acquiescence of the defendant Thein
Sein, political and religious leaders in Arakan State planned, organized, and incited
attacks against the Rohingya and other Muslims with the intent to drive them from the
state or at least relocate them from areas in which they had been residing particularly
from areas shared with the majority Buddhist population.
25. The allegations herein maintain that in various capacities, the Defendant committed acts
and omissions in violations of the law of nations and of the laws of the United States of
America.
C. Class Allegations
26. The class consists of all men, women, and children who are the surviving victims of the
policy and practice of genocide of Rohingya people carried out by the government
Complaint
officials and by non-state actors with the connivance acquiescence of the government
authorities including the named defendants.
27. The exact number of class members is not known, but it is estimated that the class
includes several hundred thousand victims, survivors and their next of kin. The class is so
numerous that joinder of individual Plaintiffs is impracticable.
28. There are common questions of law and fact in this action that affect and relate to each
member of the class, including:
a. Whether Defendants, acting individually or collectively, authorized, condoned,
commanded, or directed the unlawful acts of the authorities and forces under his
control;
b. Whether Defendants, acting individually or collectively, aided and abetted or
conspired with other forces in commission of unlawful acts;
c. Whether Defendants, acting individually or collectively, knew or should have
known that forces under his command were: deliberately and wantonly killing,
attacking, burning, raping, torturing, and maiming Rohingya people; undertaking
discriminatory and religiously bias-motivated attacks; using lethal means to carry
out those attacks; treating civilians and residents inhumanely; and undertaking
acts of violence the primary purpose of which was genocide and displacement of
the ethnic group, Rohingya.
d. Whether Defendants, acting individually or collectively, jointly or severally,
failed to punish or ratified such unlawful acts by forces and authorities under his
command;
e. Whether Defendants, acting individually or collectively, failed to take adequate
and appropriate measures to prevent subordinates under his command from
committing violations of the laws of the nations; and
f. Whether Defendants' actions give rise to liability under applicable international
and domestic laws.
29. This action is properly maintained as a class action because a) Defendants has acted and
failed to act in a way generally applicable to the class, making any declaratory relief
awarded appropriate to the class as a whole, and b) questions of law and fact common to
Complaint
10
the class predominate over questions affecting individual members and a class action is
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Background
30. For nearly 50 years, the population in Rakhine State struggled under repressive military
rule, and ethno-religious tensions between Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims
have persisted for generations. The troubles for Rohingya of the Rakhine have been
double faced as they are equally persecuted and targeted by their fellow Rakhine of nonMuslim faith and the central government of Myanmar, as they have been intent on
forcing Rohingya out of what they regard as their exclusive ancestral homeland. These
tensions have fueled significant waves of violence and well-coordinated arson attacks in
Rakhine State since 2012, targeting the Rohingya population and other Muslim
communities. State security forces participated in violence against Rohingya or failed to
protect Rohingya communities under attack. Several hundred men, women, and children
have been killed and entire Muslim neighborhoods and villages have been razed.
31. Ethnic Rohingya in Myanmar reside primarily in Rakhine State and are predominantly
Muslim. Rohingya are particularly subject to torture, abuses, state-sponsored persecution
and genocide. The state policies directed towards Rohingya Muslims includes restrictions
on movement, marriage, childbirth, home repairs and construction of houses of worship,
and other aspects of everyday life of the Rohingya. These restrictions are impermissible
under international law have been in place for decades. For example, Rohingya must seek
official government approval before marrying and are subject to restrictions on childbirth.
Complaint
11
The implementation of these policies leave Rohingya with few options but to flee the
country. These abuses amount to genocide and crimes against humanity under
international law.
32. Rohingya are barred from equal access to citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Law,
making them the worlds largest stateless population within any single countrys borders,
according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. In 2014, the government of
Myanmar began a citizenship scrutiny process to verify the status of Bengalis in
Rakhine Statea discriminatory process that requires Rohingya to disavow their ethnic
identity in exchange for a type of citizenship that does not include the rights afforded to
full citizens.
33. International NGOs have reported that since 2012 the Myanmar Army and other security
forces have used forced labor from several thousand Rohingya persons in northern
Rakhine State, including children.
34. Rohingya Muslims and other Muslim communities in Myanmar have experienced statesponsored violence and targeted attacks amounting to genocide, during the past four
years. In 2012, violence in 13 of 17 townships in Rakhine State, targeting Rohingya
Muslims, resulted in deaths, widespread destruction of property, and the internal
displacement of more than 150,000 people. State security forces failed to intervene to
stop deadly attacks and, in some cases, participated in attackskilling men, women, and
children. Further state-sponsored anti-Muslim attacks erupted throughout the country
following the 2012 violence.
35. In or around January 2013, the government sealed off Du Char Yar Tan village and
surrounding areas in Rakhine States Maungdaw Township for several weeks following
Complaint
12
reports of killings and property destruction in the area. There has yet to be a credible
independent investigation into this incident or accountability for perpetrators of violence.
36. More than 150,000 people, mostly Rohingya Muslims, remain internally displaced in
Rakhine State and confined to IDP camps. They are cut off from access to livelihood
outside of the camps and have limited access to aid. The government continues to permit
delivery of aid only to registered IDPs, effectively denying aid to tens of thousands.
Rohingya living in IDP camps and elsewhere in northern Rakhine State are deprived of
food, health-care, and livelihood opportunities. These deprivations create conditions of
life that are deliberately destructive to the Rohingya community.
37. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya have fled Myanmar since 2012, mostly in boats
bound for Bangladesh, Thailand, and Malaysia. In 2013 and 2014, the complicity of
Myanmar authorities in transnational trafficking and smuggling operations is reported by
several NGOs. Police, Navy, and Army officers demanded payments from transnational
criminal syndicates to allow Rohingya individuals to depart Rakhine State, and Myanmar
Navy ships at times escorted boats carrying asylum seekers to international waters.
38. For decades, as a matter of state policy, menacing security forces in northern Rakhine
State have restricted freedom of movement between village tracts, townships and beyond.
This limits the Rohingya ability to work, access health care and enjoy other basic rights.
If Rohingya attempt to violate such policies, they risk years in prison, fines or both.
39. These abuses are supported and implemented by the highest levels of Burmese
officialdom. The minister of home affairs in July 2012 told parliament that authorities
were tightening regulations against Rohingya "in order to handle travelling, birth, death,
Complaint
13
immigration, migration, marriage, construction of new religious buildings, repairing and

land ownership and right to construct building[s]."
40. Other military and civilian officials are on record discussing restrictions against
Rohingya as recently as last year. State-level policies (dating from 1993 to 2008) are
signed by various officials and copied to departments that fall under state and central
government jurisdictions. All of the policies remain in force today.
B. Defendants' participation
41. Defendant Thein Sein has been in Burmese military and political positions for several
decades and has held positions of command enabling him to order, aid, abet and conspire
in acts of torture and genocide against the Rohingyas. Thein Sein maintains direct links
and supports, promotes and sponsors, the notorious Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu, who
openly preaches and incites violence against Muslims. Despite ample evidence of
Wirathu's complicity in perpetrating violence against Rohingya Muslims, defendant Sein
has publicly called him 'son of lord Buddha spreading metta'. In July 2013, TIME
magazine put Wirathu on its Cover Page as the "The Face of Buddhist Terror", and in
retaliation, Thein Sein banned the article and denied the journalist Hannah Beach the visa
to Myanmar. Recently, Thein Sein's office issued a four minute video clip claiming as his
achievement the passage of anti-Muslim racist laws which categorically deny Rohingya
existence. Thein Sein is on record to instruct the parliament to draft racist laws targeting
Muslim population, as demanded by Ma Ba Tha led by Wirathu. The fact that no one
during Thein Sein's rule has ever been prosecuted for killing or attacking Rohingya is a
proof that Thein Sein has granted blanket protection and institutionalized impunity to
anyone who harms the Rohingya.
Complaint
14
42. Defendant Wunna Maung Lwin is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Myanmar, in office
since 2011. He joined the diplomatic service in 1999, after a long career in the Myanmar
Armed Forces. As foreign minister of Myanmar, defendant Lwin has been playing a key
role in denying the Genocide of Rohingya before the international community and has
thus been instrumental in prolonging the persecution of Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar.
43. Defendant Thein Htay is currently serving as Lieutenant General of the Myanmar Army.
During the period beginning March 2011 till February 2013, defendant Htay was
Minister of Border Affairs in Myanmar government and during that time, mass violence
against Rohingya Muslims was carried out by the forces he controlled and commanded.
44. Defendant Khin Yi, was the Minister for Immigration and Population from 2011 till
August 2015. He previously served as the Chief of the Myanmar Police Force and is a
retired Brigadier General of the Myanmar Army. As Minister for Immigration and
Population, Defendant Yi directly ordered, participated in and oversaw the policies and
actions of the government aimed at stripping citizenship and restricting population and
birth rights of Rohingya Muslims. In 2013, Khin Yi, while he was Minister of
Immigration and Population, publicly supported the government's announcement of
enforcement by local authorities of a two-child policy in northwestern Rakhine State for
Rohingya Muslims, establishing his complicity and participation in acts of genocide.
45. Defendant Maung Maung Ohn is the incumbent Chief Minister of Rakhine State,
Myanmar. He is a General in Myanmar Army and has previously served as Deputy
Minister of Home Affairs. Defendant Ohn, a Burmese by ethnicity, throughout his career
has supported, promoted and facilitated the persecution of Rohingya people and
Complaint
15
especially ever since he has assumed the office of Chief Minister, Ohn has intensified the
policies and practices targeting Rohingya Muslims living under his control.
46. Defendant Ko Ko is the incumbent Minister of Home Affairs, a department responsible
for internal security and policing in Myanmar. Ko Ko also serves as Lieutenant General
in Myanmar Army. Defendant Ko Ko is part of those inner circles of Myanmar
government and authorities where decisions of taking violent actions against Rohingya
Muslims are made.
C. Inadequacy of local remedies
47. Despite suffering persecution and violence for decades and despite pressure from
international community during recent years, the victims - the individual plaintiffs and
members of the class, has not and will not receive justice in Myanmar. In fact all the
evidence points to the persistence and prevalence of strong culture of impunity.
48. Impunity for crimes committed against Rohingya has enabled escalating human rights
abuses, including targeted violence against the wider Muslim community. In March 2013
former Special Rapporteur Quintana noted that the warning signs for further violence had
been evident since June 2012, but the government had simply not done enough to
address the spread of discrimination and prejudice against Muslim communities across
the country, and to tackle the organized and coordinated mobs that are inciting hatred and
violently attacking Muslim communities.
49. Further efforts to attempt justice for the members of Rohingya Muslim community,
particularly the named individuals, in their native country, Myanmar, will be futile and
pointless.
Complaint
16
50. For several years, Myanmar has been listed among "Countries of Particular Concern", by
the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, a statutory body to monitor the
state of affairs around the world viz a viz religious freedom, which clearly indicates the
prevalence of impunity and hence the lack of availability of local remedies.
51. From the above, it becomes clear that there can be no justice in a country where the state,
government and the system covers up the acts and omissions of officials and non-officials
alike, targeting an ethnic and religious minority. solely on account of ethnicity and
religion.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
52. Plaintiffs causes of action arise under and violate both domestic law and international
law as defined in agreements, declarations, conventions, resolutions, and treaties,
including but not limited to the following:
a. Customary international law and treaties of the United States;
b. Statutes and common law of the United States;
c. Statutes and common law of New York;
d. Any other applicable laws, domestic, foreign or international.
53. The claims herein under the law of nations are based on norms that are definable,
obligatory, and universally recognized.
54. The law of nations prohibits the targeting of civilians and the blatant discrimination based
on targeting members of a specific ethnic and religious group.
55. The law of nations prohibits acts or threats of violence against a specific group of people
targeted because of their ethnicity and religious beliefs.
Complaint
17
56. Based on the foregoing, Defendants are guilty of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity,
Torture, Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Extrajudicial Killings,
Wrongful Death, Negligence, Public Nuisance, Battery, and Intentional and Negligent
Infliction of emotional Distress.
57. The testimony of Plaintiffs and other witnesses will show that the defendants, through
their actions or omissions, carried out, conspired in, aided, abetted or facilitated, the
commission of crimes against humanity, targeting the minority Rohingya Muslims TO
WIT: killing of members of the Rohingya community through massacre, causing serious
bodily or mental harm to members of the community through massacre, rape, burning,
stabbing, beating, deliberately inflicting pain and imposing of conditions calculated to
bring about physical destruction in whole or in part through massacre, economic boycott,
psychic, physical, and social trauma, and imposing measures intended to prevent births
within the group through rape, trauma, destruction of family, sexual violence, and
mutilation.
58. Plaintiffs John Does requested that their identity be withheld at this stage of the
proceeding, fearing retaliation and harm to her family members living in Myanmar at the
hands of defendants or their agents. Plaintiff John Does have used the pseudonym for
the purposes of safety, security, and the prevention of retaliation by Defendants and the
forces under their control who would subject the Plaintiffs and their family members in
Myanmar to death, great bodily and mental harm, or other forms of cruelty should their
identities become known during the initial course of these proceedings. Plaintiffs are
willing to provide sworn statement as to the facts alleged in this complaint which can be
presented for this honorable Court's in-camera review.
Complaint
18
59. The United States Courts, specifically the Second Circuit, have held that in recognizing
the right to a public trial of the Defendant, such considerations must be balanced against
other interests that might justify closing the courtroom to the public, including
preservation of order, protection of parties or witnesses, or maintenance of the
confidentiality of certain information.2
General Allegations
60. The acts described in the Complaint were undertaken under color of law.
61. The acts and injuries to Plaintiffs and their deceased and injured relatives described
herein, as well as those similarly situated, were part of a pattern and practice of
systematic human rights violations designed, ordered, implemented, and directed with the
participation of Defendants and carried out by local law enforcement and military
authorities and personnel acting at their direction, and/or with his encouragement and
acquiescence and by the non-state actors acting with the permission of the defendants.
62. Plaintiffs and their decedents are members of the Rohingya Muslim community hailing
from Myanmar.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Genocide - Under ATCA)
63. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all the allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
64. The abuses committed against Plaintiffs and their next of kinds constitute the crime of
Genocide.
See United States v. Lloyd, 520 F.2d 1272, 1274 (2d Cir. 1975).
Complaint
19
65. The acts inflicted against plaintiffs were inflicted by and/or at the instigation, under the
control or authority, or with the consent of acquiescence of a public official or a person
acting in an official capacity.
66. The acts described in the complaint were carried out with an intent to destroy the people
of Rohingya ethnicity, based on their ethnicity and religion through killings and
displacement.
67. The acts described in this complaint constitute "genocide" in violation of the Article 2 of
the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and 18 U.S.C.
1091(a)(c)(d).
68. As a result of the defendants actions, the individual plaintiffs and class members, have
been damaged and are entitled to compensation in amounts to be determined at trial.
69. Defendants acts and omissions were deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton, malicious
and oppressive, and should be punished by an award of punitive damages in an amount to
be determined at trial.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Torture under the TVPA and ATCA)
70. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
71. The acts inflicted against individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class members, were
inflicted by and/or at the instigation, under the control or authority, or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
72. The acts described herein-placed individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class
members, in imminent fear for their lives and caused them to suffer severe physical and
mental pain and suffering.
Complaint
20
73. The acts described herein were inflicted deliberately and intentionally for purposes that
include, among others, obtaining information or a confession, punishing the victim,
intimidating the victim or a third person, or discrimination against Rohingya Muslims of
Myanmar.
74. The acts described herein constitute torture in violation of the Torture Victim Protection
Act (TVPA), Pub. L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992) (codified at 28 U.S.C. 1350
note), and constitute tort[s] committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of
the United States under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1350, in that the acts
violated customary international law prohibiting torture as reflected, expressed, and
defined in multilateral treaties and other international instruments, international and
domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.
75. Defendants, individually and jointly, instigated, ordered, authorized, or incited police and
other security forces to commit the abuses suffered by individual Plaintiffs and class
members, and had command or superior responsibility over, controlled, or aided and
abetted such forces in their commission of such abuses. As a result of the torture
described above, individual plaintiffs and class members have been damaged and are
entitled to compensation in amounts to be determined at trial.
76. Defendants' acts and omissions were deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton, malicious
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment -- TVPA, ATCA)
77. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding
Complaint
21
78. The acts inflicted against individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class members, were
inflicted by and/or at the instigation, under the control or authority, or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
79. The acts described herein had the intent and effect of grossly humiliating and debasing
the individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class members, by among other things,
forcing or attempting to force them to act against their will or conscience, inciting fear
and anguish, and breaking physical and moral resistance, and/or forcing or leading them
to leave their home country or families. As an intended result of these acts, Plaintiffs
were placed in great fear for their lives or physical safety, suffered severe physical and
psychological abuse and agony.
80. These acts described herein constitute tort[s] committed in violation of the law of
nations or a treaty of the United States under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.
1350, in that the acts against individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class members,
violated customary international law prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international
instruments, decisions of national and international judicial bodies, and other authorities.
81. Defendants, jointly and severally, individually and collectively, planned, instigated,
ordered, authorized, or incited police and other security forces to commit the abuses
suffered by Plaintiffs, and had command or superior responsibility over, controlled, or
aided and abetted such forces in their commission of such abuses. As a result of the acts
constituting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment described above, individual Plaintiffs,
their next of kin, and class members,
have been damaged and are entitled to
compensation in amounts to be determined at trial.
Complaint
22
82. Defendants acts and omissions were deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton, malicious
FORTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Arbitrary Detention -- ATCA)
83. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. The acts inflicted against
individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class members, were inflicted by and/or at the
instigation, under the control or authority, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official capacity.
84. Defendants and Defendants' subordinates and agents detained individual Plaintiffs, their
next of kin, and class members, or caused Plaintiffs to be detained without a warrant,
probable cause, articulable suspicion, or notice of charges; and failed to accord them due
process or any legal, consular, or familial protection and support. Defendants acts
constitute tort[s] committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United
States under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1350, in that the acts against
Plaintiffs violated customary international law prohibiting arbitrary detention as reflected,
expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international instruments,
international and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.
85. Defendants, jointly and severally, individually and collectively, planned, instigated,
aided and abetted such forces in their commission of such abuses.
Complaint
23
86. The acts constituting arbitrary detention described above, placed Plaintiffs in imminent
fear for their lives, and caused them to suffer severe physical and mental pain and
suffering. As a result of these acts of arbitrary detention, Plaintiffs have been damaged
and are entitled to compensation in amounts to be determined at trial. Defendants acts
and omissions were deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton, malicious and oppressive,
and should be punished by an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined
at trial
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Crimes Against Humanity -- ATCA)
88. The abuses committed against individual Plaintiffs, their next of kin, and class members,
described herein also constituted persecution against an identifiable group based on
ethnic, religious, political or cultural status, and were committed in the context of a
widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.
89. Defendants acting jointly or severally, individually or collectively, planned, instigated,
aided and abetted such forces in their commission of such abuses, and knew or should
have known that such acts or omissions were committed in the context of a widespread or
systematic attack against a civilian population.
90. Defendants' acts constitute tort[s] committed in violation of the law of nations or a
treaty of the United States under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1350, in that
the acts against Plaintiffs violated customary international law prohibiting crimes against
Complaint
24
humanity as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other

international instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other
authorities.
91. The acts constituting arbitrary detention described above, placed Plaintiffs in imminent
fear for their lives, and caused them to suffer severe physical and mental pain and
suffering. As a result of these acts of arbitrary detention, Plaintiffs have been damaged
and are entitled to compensation in amounts to be determined at trial.
92. Defendant's acts and omissions were deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton, malicious
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Interference with Freedom of Religion and Belief -- ATCA)
94. The arbitrary arrests, detention and physical abuse suffered by individual Plaintiffs, their
next of kin, and class members on account of their Muslim faith at the hands of Buddhists
of Myanmar, constitutes a serious interference with their right to freedom of religion and
belief. The interferences with Plaintiffs right to freedom of religion and belief constitute
tort[s] committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States
according to the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1350, in that they constitute
violations of customary international law protecting the right to freedom of religion and
belief as reflected, expressed, defined and codified in multilateral treaties and other
international instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other
Complaint
25
authorities. Plaintiffs were subjected to arbitrary arrests, detention and physical abuse as a
result of their practice and expression of belief in the teachings of Muslim faith.
95. Defendants acting jointly or severally, individually or collectively, planned, instigated,
ordered, authorized, or incited police and other security forces to commit the serious
interferences with the freedom of religion and belief suffered by Plaintiffs, and had
command or superior responsibility over, controlled, or aided and abetted such forces in
such interferences with Plaintiffs freedoms of religion and belief, and Defendants knew
or should have known that such acts or omissions were committed in the context of a
widespread or systematic campaign to interfere with the right of Rohingya Muslims to
exercise their freedom of religion and belief. The acts constituting serious interference
with Plaintiffs freedom of religion and belief described above, caused Plaintiffs to suffer
severe mental pain and suffering. As a result of these acts of arbitrary detention, Plaintiffs
have been damaged and are entitled to compensation in amounts to be determined at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, pray for judgment against the Defendant as
follows:
a)
b)
c)
d)
For compensatory damages according to proof;

For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof;
For reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit, according proof;
For a declaratory judgment holding that Defendants conduct amounted to "Genocide"
and was in violation of the law of nations;
e) and
f) For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
A jury trial is demanded on all issues.
Dated: October 01, 2015
_/s/ Babak Pourtavoosi _________
Babak Pourtavoosi, Esq
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
Complaint
26

Complaint by BTF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint by BTF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 26

Babak Pourtavoosi, Esq

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 26

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, allege the following:

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 3 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 4 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 5 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 6 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 7 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 8 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 9 of 26

22. Defendant Ko Ko is the incumbent Minister of Home Affairs, a department responsible

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 10 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 11 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 12 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 13 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 14 of 26

immigration, migration, marriage, construction of new religious buildings, repairing and

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 15 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 16 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 17 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 18 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 19 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 20 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 21 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 22 of 26

have been damaged and are entitled to

compensation in amounts to be determined at trial.

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 23 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 24 of 26

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 25 of 26

humanity as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other

Case 1:15-cv-07772 Document 1 Filed 10/01/15 Page 26 of 26

For compensatory damages according to proof;

You might also like